Green Room

If you want to live long, prosper, and have lots more sex …

… get married, says Steven Crowder. In his latest column for Fox News, the newlywed reminds readers why the institution of marriage matters to adults, children, and society as a whole:

1. You’ll be richer – Yes. Not only do married couples make more, save more, have a higher net worth and qualify for more benefits/financial incentives than lonely, single folk… but your kids will be richer too. Which brings me to my next point

2. Would somebody please think of the children!! – The single biggest indicator of child poverty is whether both original parents are still together. Not only that, but children in married households get better grades, are less disruptive in class and less likely to develop behavioral disorders than children from non-married households. So be married long and prosper. Your kids will too.

3. You’ll have more sex… A LOT MORE SEX – Okay so you may not want kids. You may despise them. I get it. Sticky hands. Let’s say you’re just another selfish, narcissistic bachelor (or bachelorette) who quite frankly, isn’t deserving of the unconditional love you may oh-so-luckily find. You just want the sex. Statistically, not only do married people have more sex, they have better, more satisfying sex. If the two of you should hold off on sex until marriage, those statistics become even more promising. Here’s a perfect example of where Hollywood gets it wrong. In the real world, while Alfie fruitlessly toiled away at picking up harlots from the bar, suffering a mean case of whiskey-wiener, Mr. Cleaver was getting busy on the regular. Them’s the real breaks.

4. You won’t be such a pathetic sloth – Married people are more productive. Married men in particular, have higher employment rates, work longer hours and receive better wages. It’s time to stop wading through puddles of your own filth as you reach for the hotpockets and have a dame whip you into shape. You’re welcome..

I’ve always thought marriage was an incredibly good deal for both men and women. Be sure to read it all.

Comments

P.S., I don’t even necessarily disagree with him on the merits. I’m just not sure the preachiness is helpful — I know it certainly doesn’t serve to make me any more sympathetic to his arguments, and I’m already inclined to mostly agree with them anyway.

thirtyandseven on January 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM

Then what would you change to make this piece less “preachy?” Conservatives generally worry about substance over style.

As for me calling you a douchebag, that’s not an ad hominem argument because I’m not making an argument. You agree with me that Crowder’s correct. How does it matter worth a tinker’s dam if you feel like it’s “preachy?” Or did I miss the boat and suddenly conservatives joined the libwits in recognizing style over substance?

I don’t see the article as arrogant or preachy, but then, as a relative newlywed married who also waited…Steven’s article (and the previous one concerning the newlywed experience) resonated very much with me, on many levels, up to and including realizing “the next day” that weddings are nothing but big parties to most people.

Well, are you trying to preach to a conservative choir that already agrees with you anyway, or do you want to actually make an argument that could convince someone who doesn’t yet?

thirtyandseven on January 27, 2013 at 10:22 PM

Some things are settled questions. I’m not married, and that may be why I personally believe that marriage is oversold, but it’s still absolutely and undeniably true that, as respective groups, married men have more sex, report being more satisfied with married sex, have longer, more productive professional lives, and children that get into far less trouble. I don’t know how else to say that without sounding preachy to you, but then again, I’ve always believed that women are a civilizing influence on men writ-large, and marriage is the chief institution by which that civilizing influence is exercised. I could be a little biased in my feelings on Crowder’s piece. Oh well.

Anyone consider the fact that married men are working longer hours and earning more money because they are avoiding their wives? Hooray marriage!
Abacab on January 27, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Nope. I work long hours thanks to the reckless spending and out-of-control policies of this and previous administrations, but I don’t do it to avoid my wife! In fact, I kinda like hangin’ out with AJsMommie. 🙂

We must keep this article on tap. In a few years, he’ll get tired of his wife, he’ll get caught cheating, his marriage will fail, he’ll get taken to the cleaners, and then – as the emperor would have said to him – only now, at the end, does he understand.

We must keep this article on tap. In a few years, he’ll get tired of his wife, he’ll get caught cheating, his marriage will fail, he’ll get taken to the cleaners, and then – as the emperor would have said to him – only now, at the end, does he understand.

keep the change on January 27, 2013 at 11:13 PM

You sound like someone who speaks from experience, Butch. 😉

My parents have been married for going on 39 years. It’s very doable. But man-alive, open a window. It stinks of cynicism in here!

So you spend so much time with foreign objects in your mouth, you feel a burning need to put words in Crowder’s? How you and I can both be lifelong bachelors and view this piece so differently is beyond me.

Not at all. The statistics clearly indicate that being married is better than not being married. Yes, Steven may be really enjoying his honeymoon, but I’m also a big proponent of being married and unless you redefine “honeymoon” to mean eleven going on twelve years, then it ain’t just the honeymoon.

Your mileage may vary, of course. But the anecdotal evidence that marriage is flimsy at best, and it falls apart when hit by the light of statistics.

well for one thing, that has a much different tone than does the article, and for another, it may help to recognize that the effect of marriage for women in some of those purported benefit areas is not always positive, particularly shorter term.

At any rate, people follow Crowder (and any political pundit/figure) for, well, their political insights. To use that platform to extoll quintessentially private social values is just generally going to come across as preachy in that context, even without the narcissistic sloth-bachelor language.

When people want to hear about the effect of private individual’s private choices, they will turn to sociologists and other family experts, rather than political operatives — and much less ones who are newlywed and frankly kind of loud about it.

When people want to hear about the effect of private individual’s private choices, they will turn to sociologists and other family experts, rather than political operatives — and much less ones who are newlywed and frankly kind of loud about it.

thirtyandseven on January 27, 2013 at 11:31 PM

Where have you been? Living under a rock? Crowder has always opined on private choices and Christian morality! At least he has for as long as I’ve been following him. I think that his enjoyment of being married/newlywed is just hitting a bit close to home for those of you who were miserable before you read this piece, married or no.

4. You won’t be such a pathetic sloth – Married people are more productive. Married men in particular, have higher employment rates, work longer hours and receive better wages. It’s time to stop wading through puddles of your own filth as you reach for the hotpockets and have a dame whip you into shape. You’re welcome..

OMG. I just realized what all the haters are complaining about! This only partially tongue-in-cheek paragraph! I swear this didn’t even register with me because it was clearly meant to be funny and also had a major nugget of truth to it, at least for me. I definitely was NOT a model housekeeper when I was single. I definitely started taking better care of myself when I was dating, started making better choices when I got married, and in particular became more responsible when AJ was born.

This is probably the “edgiest” paragraph in the article, and it’s the one that’s getting all the hate.

Love it. I absolutely love it. You’re not mad (only) because Steven’s married and loving it, you’re mad because he called out those of us who chose (or still choose) to live lives of slovenly bachelorhood.

Oh well, I guess you can call that preachy. I dunno. I just call it a recognition that at least SOME of us had apartments that weren’t too far removed from Animal House…

Love it. I absolutely love it. You’re not mad (only) because Steven’s married and loving it, you’re mad because he called out those of us who chose (or still choose) to live lives of slovenly bachelorhood.

Oh well, I guess you can call that preachy. I dunno. I just call it a recognition that at least SOME of us had apartments that weren’t too far removed from Animal House…

Hee!

AJsDaddie on January 27, 2013 at 11:47 PM

I plead guilty to pathetic sloth in the second degree. My apartment isn’t that bad. LOL

I respect Steve. I got very upset seeing him punched by fat union thugs back in the fall.

However, like I said, unlike his videos, he tends to lose his powerful arguments in his written pieces in the way he comes across. I remember reading about the article on his wedding, and the way he laid so much judgement upon a couple he knew nothing about, all because the groom wasn’t feeling well after a fun night.

Now there’s this piece, where single men are just slobs and pathetic ones at that.

Maybe I’m missing the humor, but knowing his history of writing, I doubt I’m wrong when I say these sorts of statements are less humor and more of true feelings harbored.

That’s fine to feel like that, but, again, I feel he makes his strong arguments weaker when he decides to start painting people who don’t live exactly like he does with such broad brushes.

Plenty of unmarried boys died fighting Krauts and Japanese. Plenty of unmarried people bust their nuts at their jobs and can’t wait to find the person they’re gonna marry.

Enough with such steroidal judgement. It’s unbecoming of Crowder’s intellect and courageousness, which I know is praiseworthy.

Picture coming home every night to your best friend, your greatest fan, and your number one supporter. She (or he) makes each good day better, and each bad day good again. Every day, you get to live what is essentially a 24/7 sleepover party with the greatest friend you’ve ever had.

Some of her major points:
Social issues cause fiscal issues.
Poverty is caused by lack of fathers. Children are growing up without fathers. This costs us more than the national defense budget.
1/2 of Americans depend on government handouts paid for by the other half.
We have a hidden welfare state because so few Americans know about its enormity. Why are we subsidizing marriage absence and illegitimacy? We have more illegitimate babies each year subsidized by tax payers.
The social issue of marriage is an enormous fiscal issue.
Marriage is not respected in fiscal policy as much as in the past.

Shlafly: Our social policy threads throughout our tax code. Social policy costs us greatly on the fiscal side. Our income tax system has gradually devalued traditional marriage. Even Obamacare contains a “marriage penalty”. If you care about our fiscal health, we must address the social problem of marriage absence. Social and fiscal issues cannot be separated! (Standing ovation.)

11:50AM: Schlafly: it’s the absence of marriage that causes poverty. Social issues cause fiscal issues. Federal programs are guilty of fueling social decline. President Reagan said: “If we subsidize something, we get more of it.” Why are we subsidizing social breakdown and the breakdown of families?

He’s not as funny or entertaining or daring as he used to be. He’s gotten bland to me. I guess that’s what I mean.

John the Libertarian on January 27, 2013 at 11:11 PM

Maybe its you.
I don’t think Stevens point or drive is to be “edgy” or “daring”. You may like Bill Mahr means of expressing opinion more.
Steven has always struck me as brilliant at pointing out the absurdities of liberal thought and actions.
You may be starting to accept the semi “normalness” of lefties, and want to have an endless series of “kicking it up a notch”. Thats what liberals do. Thats why they protest angerly…naked..because someone is wearing shoes, or shout down a conservative giving a speech, because thats how much the “care”…about the freedom of speech, etc.

I feel he makes his strong arguments weaker when he decides to start painting people who don’t live exactly like he does with such broad brushes.

I didn’t get that from the article.
Claiming “broad brush” in the same sentence that claims ..”people who don’t live exactly like he does…, is painting with a broad brush, imo.
Just sayin’

Plenty of unmarried boys died fighting Krauts and Japanese. Plenty of unmarried people bust their nuts at their jobs and can’t wait to find the person they’re gonna marry.

The key line there is can’t wait to find the person they’re gonna marry.
I think Steven was talking about the people who make it a point to not marry and wear it as a badge of being socially evolved and intellectually superior.
Those boys and girls who fought and hoped to survive the war to get back and find that person to marry would probably side with Steven.

Enough with such steroidal judgement. It’s unbecoming of Crowder’s intellect and courageousness, which I know is praiseworthy.

blatantblue on January 28, 2013 at 12:39 AM

I still don’t see the ‘steroidal judgement’ thing.
How would you have expressed the observations Steve made?

He is making broad generalizations about those who aren’t married, i.e. they live in filth. But, my issue with the piece has to do with the preachy overtones, from someone who’s not been married long enough to really be lecturing anyone (yet). Someone else wondered why style mattered, if the substance was largely true, but Obama is proof that it does. Look at how people responded to Rick Santorum…he’s right in what he says about the family, but the way he goes about saying it is off-putting.

Someone else wondered why style mattered, if the substance was largely true, but Obama is proof that it does. Look at how people responded to Rick Santorum…he’s right in what he says about the family, but the way he goes about saying it is off-putting.

No. Because the way something is said is more important than the truth. These days, you can tell an outright lie and get away with it as long as it doesn’t upset the apple cart. e.g. “Abortion isn’t really taking a life.” We worship at the altar of the fashionable. And by “we,” I mean Americans. That includes many self-professed “conservatives” as well.

He is making broad generalizations about those who aren’t married, i.e. they live in filth. But, my issue with the piece has to do with the preachy overtones, from someone who’s not been married long enough to really be lecturing anyone (yet). Someone else wondered why style mattered, if the substance was largely true, but Obama is proof that it does. Look at how people responded to Rick Santorum…he’s right in what he says about the family, but the way he goes about saying it is off-putting.

changer1701 on January 28, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Many young bachelors DO live like slobs. Not all but many. You know which ones are more likely to follow that lifestyle?..college aged liberals who think “Party on Garth”..”with all that poon out their, marriage is for suckers”..”I’m keepin’ my options open, man.”, as they open the fridge, take a bit off the chunk of cheese, a swig of milk out of the container and pull a dirty dish out of the sink to reheat some burritos. Those people grow up (physically) and turn into 50 yr olds with Corvettes and exposed chest hair. Maybe they vacuum before their Match.com date shows up, but inside their heads they dream of the good ol days of joyous filth livin’.
Not all..but many. Seeing that liberals are about 20% of the population, claiming broad brush implications is a misnomer imo.
I think they are the point of the article. Maybe not, but thats what it seemed like to me.

. Someone else wondered why style mattered, if the substance was largely true, but Obama is proof that it does. Look at how people responded to Rick Santorum…he’s right in what he says about the family, but the way he goes about saying it is off-putting.

changer1701 on January 28, 2013 at 9:13 AM

But it only matters to the gullible idiots.
It’s pointless to try and beat them at their own game.
Stand on principles and see if enough people respect that kind of thing.